Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES (DRAFT) MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2025 6:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER: Gage Simpson, Chair called the meeting to order at 6:30 P.M. PRESENT: Gage Simpson, Chair, Brendan Dailey, Co-Chair, Otis Maxwell, Chris LaPointe, Amanda Demma, Jonah Cohen, Shafer Gaston ABSENT: STAFF: Susan Barden, Senior Planner, Jackie White, City Attorney ANNOUNCEMENT OF RECORDING OF PROCEEDING: The proceedings of this meeting are being recorded for the benefit of the secretary. Because the minutes are not verbatim record of the proceedings, the minutes are not a word-for-word transcript of the recording. ZBA APPLICATIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION: PROCEDURAL BUSINESS: NEW BUSINESS: 1. #20250776 19 Aurora Ave. Area variance for placement of compressors for HVAC for an existing dingle-family residence in the Suburban Residential – 1 (SR-1) District. Variances sought for 19 Aurora Ave.: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT#3 ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED SIDE YARD SETBACK 5 FT. 3.2 FT. 1.8 FT. (36%) James Hamilton was told by the building inspector that his HVAC compressors were located in the 5 ft. setback, and he is requesting relief for 1.8 ft. The neighbors were given notice and signs were posted on the property. He spoke with his next-door neighbor and there were no concerns on his part. Chris said it looks like there’s a generator as well. James said there was, and it was removed. Otis asked for comps showing similar installations in the setback in the neighborhood. James will send comps to the planning staff. Gage said the next meeting is October 27th and the board will have something ready for the applicant. Gage Simpson, Chair opened the Public Hearing at 6:41p.m. There were no comments, and the public hearing will remain open. 2. #20240987 131 Middle Ave. Single Family Construction. Area Variance for a single-family residence in the Urban Residential – 2 (UR-2) District. Variances sought for 131 Middle Ave.: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT#3 ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED MAXIMUM COMBINED 40% 49% 8.9% COVERAGE REAR YARD SETBACK 25 FT. 20.8 FT. 4.2 FT. (16.8%) TOTAL SIDE 12 FT. 10.2 FT. 1.8 FT. (15%) ACCESSORY TO SIDE 5 FT. 4 FT. 1 FT. (20%) GENERATOR & AC UNIT DRIVEWAY WIDTH 25% (12’) 37.5% (18’) 6 FT. Jesse Boucher, Kodiak Construction represented the applicants, Kim and Mike Southern. The homeowners currently live in a house on a parcel that they own that backs up to York Ave. that they have remodeled. In 2017 they sought a subdivision of the lot to create a parcel on Middle Ave. where they could build a new home. The subdivision was approved by the Planning Board with contingencies, and an architect designed a house that would meet those conditions. The plan shows a detached garage in the rear and bedrooms only on the second floor of the house. In 2021 when the approvals were being finalized, costs for construction had increased and Mike Southern got a diagnosis of multiple sclerosis which would eventually require a first-floor primary suite. After designing a new plan with a first-floor primary suite and one that reduced construction costs, the applicant submitted the new plan to the city. The planning staff recommended that the applicant go before the planning board before the ZBA because of the contingencies from 2017. The applicant met with the planning board three times in the spring & summer of this year to refine the floor plan and make the house more appropriate for the streetscape – how the house presents to the street. They made a larger front porch and pushed the garage back to make sure there was room between the garage and the sidewalk where cars could park on the driveway without impeding the sidewalk. Chris said he would like to get a copy of the Planning Board approval and comps from the area. Can the house be made smaller, requiring less significant variances? Amanda asked that they tighten up the side setback and show what the benefit might be/or not. Brendan said they are close to compliance with the accessory to rear. Discuss with client about moving the condenser/generator to the back which would reduce the variance request and also bring the coverage down. Jonah agreed with moving the HVAC to the back. Asked if the permeability is good. Jesse said it’s just grass in the back. The original plan had a patio off the back of the house, but they’ve changed that to covered living space. It is adding to the coverage but in terms of maintenance it would improve the applicant’s living situation. Jonah said there’s other undersized lots in the area so they should be able to find comps for the setbacks. Otis commented that the project appears not to satisfy the necessary permeability requirements. If it’s close they should consider using permeable pavers with grass for the driveway. Jesse said their imperviousness is 55% and the requirement is 70% so they have some wiggle room. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – September 29, 2025 Page 2 of 5 Shafer noted that the escape well does not count toward the setback. He would like to see how the proposed square footage of the house compares to other houses in the neighborhood as part of comps. Gage asked about the driveway width. Jesse said the lot is 48’ wide and they are asking for 18’ to accommodate 2 cars. He can provide comps from the neighborhood. Gage Simpson, Chair opened the Public Hearing at 6:57 p.m. Mark Dillon owns 129 Middle Ave. next door and said he was initially against the project because the lot is non-conforming and smaller, and the AC looks close to his property line. If it could be moved to the back he is good with the project. Gage Simpson, Chair said the Public Hearing will remain open. Continued Business: 3. #20250738 2 N. Circular St. Area variance for installation of a wall and fence in the Urban Residential – 2 (UR-2) District. Variances sought for 2 N. Circular St.: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT#3 ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED FENCE HEIGHT (EAST) 6 FT. 13 FT. 7 FT. FENCE HEIGHT (SOUTH) 6 FT. 8 FT. 2 FT. The applicant was not present and the application was tabled. 4. #20250734 17 Walnut St. Area Variance for an addition to an existing single-family residence in the Urban Residential – 2 (UR-2) District. Variances sought for 17 Walnut St.: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT#3 ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED MIN. TOTAL SIDE SETBACK 20 FT. 11.5 FT. 8.5 FT (42.5%) Tonya Yasenchak, Engineering America, Y-engineering represented the applicant. Tonya explained that in 2021, they proposed a project with a large, covered porch near the property line (off the back of the main house) and believed a variance was needed due to the house's existing non- conforming status. This project no longer includes a large porch off of the main house and they are now seeking variances for the minimum total side setback and driveway width.The board confirmed that the only variance needed is for the minimum total side setback. Gage Simpson, Chair said the Public Hearing was still open. There were no comments, and the public hearing was closed at 7:02 p.m. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – September 29, 2025 Page 3 of 5 Brendan Dailey made a motion to approve an area variance for 17 Walnut St., Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Shafer Gaston. Vote: B. Dailey- Y, G. Simpson-Y, A. Demma-Y, C. LaPointe-Y, J. Cohen-Y, S. Gaston-Y, O. Maxwell-Y. 7-0, motion carried. 5. #20250534 169 Union Ave. and Morton Pl. Area Variance. Modification to a previously approved area variance for a detached carriage house in the Urban Residential – 4 (UR-4) District. Variances sought for 169 Union Ave.: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT#3 ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED MIN. AVERAGE WIDTH 80 FT. 50 FT. 30 FT. (37.5%) MAX PRINCIPAL COVERAGE 40% 46.5% 6.5% (16.3%) MAX. DRIVEWAY PERCENTAGE 25% 40% 15% (60%) REAR SETBACK TO MORTON 25 FT. 5 FT. 20 FT. (80%) ALLEY Tonya Yasenchak, Engineering America & Y Engineering represented the applicant. The property is located on Union St. on a corner property that wraps around Ludlow and Morton Alley. The applicant was before the ZBA in the past and received some variances for this project that are due to expire. Subsequently, the applicant went to the DRB who requested that the building be brought closer to the alley so that it’s more consistent with the historic landscape and the setback would be more in line with other garages on the alley. The applicant agreed with that change and asked that the previously approved variances be reapproved, and an additional variance be granted to move the garage closer to the alley. A grass parking strip was added to the site plan and permeability has been met. An updated plot plan was submitted. Gage Simpson, Chair said the Public Hearing was still open. There were no comments, and the public hearing was closed at 7:08 p.m. Shafer Gaston made a motion to approve area variances for 169 Union Ave. and Morton Pl., Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Jonah Cohen. Vote: B. Dailey- Y, G. Simpson- Y, A. Demma-Y, C. LaPointe-Y, J. Cohen-Y, S. Gaston-Y, O. Maxwell-Y. 7-0, motion carried. NOTE: Per the submitted plans the former concrete slab is to return to green. Tonya said the sidewalk has been fixed and the area is now greenspace. 6. #20250526 14 Ritchie Place. Area Variance for additions to an existing single-family residence in the Urban Residential – 1 (UR-1) District. Mary Dooley, applicant previously informed the board that she lived in VA and was unable to attend this meeting. The board asked that comps for mass and scale be submitted, and they were received by the city. Gage Simpson, Chair said the Public Hearing was still open. There were no comments, and the public hearing was closed at 7:15 p.m. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – September 29, 2025 Page 4 of 5 Otis Maxwell made a motion to approve area variances for 14 Ritchie Pl., Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Jonah Cohen. Discussion: The relief requested was not consistent with the resolution and should be stated as follows: Max. Comb. Coverage 28%/31%/3%; Front Yard Setback 30’/14’/16’; Side 2 Setback 12’/10’/2’; Side 2 Setback 30’/24.5’/5.5’; Total Side 30’/24.5’/5.5’. On paragraph 1 add “the alternatives considered were not deemed feasible to the applicant. The Board notes there is no additional land for purchase.” In paragraph 3 “the board finds that the requested variances are substantial, but this is mitigated by the factors described above”. Note the date in paragraph 2 as “held between September 15 and September 29, 2025. Vote: B. Dailey- Y, G. Simpson-Y, A. Demma-Y, C. LaPointe-Y, J. Cohen-Y, S. Gaston-Y, O. Maxwell-Y. 7-0, motion carried 7. #20250743 112 Fifth Ave. Area Variance for a new single-family residence in the Urban Residential – 1 (UR-1) District. Variances sought for 112 Fifth Ave.: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT#3 ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED MAX. COMBINED COVERAGE% 28% 42% 14% MINIMUM REAR SETBACK 30 FT. 19 FT. 11 FT. (38%) TOTAL SIDE SETBACK 30 FT. 23 FT. 7 FT. (25%) MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS 50% 59.9% 9.9% SURFACE COVERAGE John Witt represented the applicants, Mario and Dawn Martinez. They purchased the house to the right of their home so they could have a first-floor master suite to age in place. John presented a slide showing the existing footprint (in pink) of the house versus proposed. All of the homes on the street are non-conforming. There are no sidewalks on the street, but they are proposing one for the front of this home. There’s an additional 5 ft. of front yard setback where the right-of-way goes into the front setback of the homes. Their front yard is larger than it looks. This UR-1 lot is non-conforming because it measures 10,000 sq ft, below the 12,500 sq ft minimum. Currently, the lots on this street range from 7,500 up to 12,500 with larger lots at the end of the street. John presented a sketch of the proposed front elevation and first floor plan and a list of comps that have received variances in the neighborhood. There’s currently a one-car garage and they are proposing a two-car garage. John showed photo slides of the front and rear of several existing homes on Fifth Ave. In order to reduce the variance, they would need to build up and add an elevator. It would be odd shaped and not fit in with the other houses in the neighborhood. Gage said the addition on the left side of the proposed plan and larger garage are impacting the coverage, imperviousness, and the side yard setback. Making the addition smaller will reduce the relief requested significantly. John said he will discuss with his clients. Gage asked for comps in the 33% to 35% range for coverage. John said they may be able to get in the 38% range. They will be digging down and adding about 2 ft. of crushed stone under permeable pavers which will take water City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – September 29, 2025 Page 5 of 5 faster than grass. Gage noted they could reduce two variances; imperviousness and driveway percentage if they excluded the horseshoe driveway. Jonah would like to see comps for impervious surfaces for the comps presented tonight. John said that would be nearly impossible to do but many of the homes have large patios and covered structures. The impervious surface coverage is Jonah’s biggest concern. He agreed that the horseshoe driveway is a concern. Otis agreed they should look at it with and without the horseshoe driveway. Shafer asked to see comps for lot size versus house size in the neighborhood. The board members agreed that removing the horseshoe driveway and replacing it with a standard driveway would make them more amenable to the project. Gage Simpson, Chair opened the Public Hearing at 7:45 p.m. There were no comments, and the public hearing will remain open. Gage Simpson, Chair adjourned the meeting at 7:46 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Donna Gizzi, Recording Secretary City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – September 29, 2025 Page 6 of 5